About your Search

20100901
20100930
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
-- the department of defense leaders, not by the service chiefs, a process that was supposed to inform us with one that merely ratifies a politically-driven decision. we all fall or to hearing your thoughts about whether the comprehensive review should be allowed to run its course in this fashion, and what you feel about the affected could have on the united states marine corps. we also look forward to hearing your professional military advice about what policy is best for your branch of our armed services, the effectiveness and readiness of which you will be entrusted with maintaining at the highest levels if confirmed in this position. today our military continues to be engaged in combat operations, and career officers, in ceo's, and their families, are being asked to do so much. it would be a mistake to ignore the views of our troops and the military advice of the service chiefs, and for the senate to act prematurely to repeal the tariff don't ask, don't tell law for the sake of fulfilling a political promise. i look for to the testimony of general amos today, and i again thank him and his fami
questions out there but the rulemaking is going to need to clarify for us. but kind is based on even where you think it's coming out today, how is it going to change what you do? >> well, specifically on the pension side because they did something that was pretty smart a couple years ago they entered into a long-duration program, where we moved more of the pension investments from equity into fixed income. and so also looking at doing more physical interest rate swap. the same is to minimize the interest rate volatility. if you want to add on additional 10 to $15 billion in interest rate depending on how legislation decides to set the initial variation margin, you may forgo doing some of that because so much capital is being set aside and entered into a hedging portfolio pictures they knew what to limit volatility. but now you're adding this cash component because you have to set aside that much working capital. honestly hopefully the look of the maybe complex securities and do other things and do more net income aware that risk is minimized and so the cache is being set aside. but for us
it first but am getting used to it. filthth we're taking steps to reduce the number of o.s.d. level reviews to those necessary to support major investment decisions or to uncover and respond to significant program execution issues. eliminating low value added statutory processes and i hasten to say at this point i'm not referring to weapons acquisitions reform act that we understand the intent of that and appreciate that intent and are executing to that intent including developmental test and evaluation and systems engineering. the kind of thing i have in mind is this, i sit in there in the pentagon on saturday afternoon reading reports to you that are this thick and in an embarrassing number of circumstances late to need. and am convinced i'm the only human being that ever read it, never will and the reason i'm reading is because i have to sign it and am afraid of embarrassing myself. i sign an equal number of letters to you in which i say you ask for it in may and it's june and it has nothing to do with intent but execution and the paperwork burden we've imposed upon ourselves. that's jus
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3